"It has put the more Europhile Labour Party in a quandary. If Labour fails to promise a referendum, it will come across as elitist."
That's true. So here's my suggestion to Labour: promise a Manichean 'In/Out' referendum. It may seem outlandish, but consider these advantages:
- they would be answering the incessant whining from the other side of the political spectrum, as many a right-winger in Britain wants out;
- they would be true to their values, as they would aggressively campaign for a 'In' vote;
- in case of an 'In' win, they would legitimise their pro-Europe agenda and settle this matter (well, not really, but as well as possible at present);
- in case of a 'No'... well, that's unlikely, isn't it, considering the condition for the referendum to take place being a Labour majority;
More importantly, though: it's the only logical thing to do. What's the alternative, renegotiating terms for the UK? Really? Securing 27 approvals (why is everyone forgetting upcoming Croatia?) for what is seen by many in the rest of Europe as a disengenuous, base-pandering, self-serving move (how many times out of 10 is 'EU à la carte' said in an approving tone?) is so far-fetched that it makes the speech look like little more than an admittedly astute political gimmick.

A minor correction: I've just noticed that a user (Swedane, who commented on Jan 24th, 19:58) mentioned the fact that the EU will be 28-strong (or -weak?) still this year. But that the BBC and other respected media outlets have failed to show their awareness of this is disheartening, to say the least.

After all The Economist is a British one, who can't help decorating the ugly truth: it's not a negotiation with EU but a blatant threat. To put it simply, unless EU meets all Britain's demands, they will quit!

Well, at least in theory, he doesn't actually have to offer anything in return.
If governments honestly consider the views of their people, it is not impossible to think that there could be more countries that would like to be part of a new tier of membership.
Even those who don't wish to join such a new tier might see the advantages to allowing others to have it.
The most obvious benefit being that with a satisfied group of countries in a 2nd tier, it will be easier for those in the first tier to move ahead as they like.

Anyway, it is quite unrealistic for Cameron to start talking about what he can offer as the negotiations have not even started yet. All in good time.

Finally, it is clear that there are Europeans who appear to not like the UK being part of the EU, so all other things being equal, would simply prefer to have it leave. But there are, I think, some who prefer to have the UK in, for whatever reason.

David Cameron has made an immeasurable mistake. Most Britons don't have a clue about the EU, and have no idea that by leaving the UK will enter the dark ages. Most Britons read trash like the Daily Fail or The Sun, and all they see in the EU is a reason to be Xenophobic.
.
David Cameron has clearly done this knowing that the people who have no clue about the EU are also those that do not usually vote for his party. By offering them this referendum, he hopes to get the Tory vote whilst hoping Europe makes his life easier. In my view, that makes him a sell out.
.
This is truly a disastrous situation. The EU is not a 'club', and it cannot be left like cancelling your local tennis club membership. EU law is entwined and embodied in every part of our society. The UK is a service industry and our greatest trading partners are in the EU.
.
But now the clueless people of this country are being given the unwarranted opportunity to wave their pitchforks and vote to destroy what is left of the UK. This is a fatal error. The rest of the world sees it, but DC is too concerned with his own agenda to really care. What a disappointment he is to the Tory party and I hope he is remembered for being such a failure.
.
I will be voting Labour at the next election, and I hope others do to. I hope Labour sees this inherent, disastrous weakness in the Tory party and takes a stand against this lunacy.
.
Failing that, I will be moving abroad should we leave. I won't wait for my life to disintegrate from within this country. That is, if that is possible at all. I have strong doubts about the legitimacy of whether a true 'departure' is really on the cards; it is an unthinkable suggestion.
.
The EU was meant to be for forever. It grew and modified itself so that the European countries could actually compete on a global scale. It seems that some people forget why the EU was necessary, and are as pathetic and those screaming independence in any other minor territories in the world; whatever happened to solidarity?
.
The EU is a federal jurisdiction. If the UK leaves, it will be as serious as several states declaring freedom from the USA. It is unthinkable, and I hope this decision is reversed before real damage occurs.

Even though there are benefits for business and trade by remaining in the EU there is something more important: Democracy and the right to national self determination. EU is moving at high speed toward an undemocratic full political union. It is undemocratic in the sense that voters in one country have almost no way of expressing discontent or putting democratic pressure on the EU to change an existing EU law. Once power is moved from the member states to the EU they will NEVER ever be handed back. That is the core ideology of the EU project. And once EU laws are in place there is almost NO way to change them. They are set in stone forever unless the ruling class in the EU Commission feels like changing them.

Freedom and democracy is more important than short term opportunistic gains.

You speak as if the Commission is undemocratic... it is true that the staff members of the Commission apply for positions as in any other job, but the Commissioners themselves are nominated individually by each Member State. Furthermore, the Parliament has an ever increasing role in this selection, which has been democratic since 1979.
.
MEPs and Commissioners are thus elected based on who we elect in our national elections. It is a complete lie to suggest that these bodies are entirely independent and undemocratic. I am sure someone with the knowledge you present yourself as having actually knows this, so why must you pretend it is not the case?
.
Furthermore, the UK is in the top band of voting in the EU Council, with 29 votes. In addition, we are in the second tier for the number of members in Parliament, at 78. Only Germany has more, and that is because its population is much greater. Overall, the UK has significant power in the EU, and that stems directly from who we elect.
.
This is half the problem. The population of the UK fails to acknowledge this democracy, and instead think that some German politician is making all our decisions. That could not be further from the truth. These lies must stop, and until they do, this referendum is a farce.

On the surface and with a formal definition EU is democratic. But de facto it is not. The ruling class in Brussels are united in the long term vision to strip th nation states of all power and concentrate all power in Europe to themselves. They know that the people would reject such a proposal if presented with it and therefore they do it gradually and clandestine.

Voters in smaller EU countries have no DEMOCRATIC way whatsoever to change existing EU laws or take back power that their government handed over to the EU.

The only democratic rubber stamp on EU powers are bullied 51% referendums. And once the voters said Yes to handing over more power they can never ever ever get it back.

Many congratulations for saying what I have wanted to say fro a long time but never dared to. The vast majority of the British electorate and too many influential commentators including the press have a wholly inadequate understanding of what the EU really stands for and how its many institutions actually function. This lack of proper understanding is partly the fault of successive British governments and partly of the EU institutions themselves.
A referendum on such a complex subject as UK membership of the EU is a rash and unwise decision. For TE to write "Referendums are a good way of settling important constitutional questions" is shameful. The British people are ruled by the Sovereign in Parliament and governed by the Cabinet. Parliament can make and revoke whatever laws it chooses: it is the ultimate authority over the British people. Government policy is decided in Cabinet. UK membership of the EU should be a Cabinet decision put to Parliament for approval or for revocation.
The Prime Minister is right to say that the EU needs to adapt to a different future. As in all EU member states, not everything is as good as it could be or should be, so in the EU as a body of (soon) 28 member states much needs to be improved. There is no certainty whatsoever that things in the UK will improve by its leaving the EU. If anything, they are likely to get worse. If the UK leaves the EU, it will have as little influence as possible over a giant economic and political power -- as little as it has over the USA or China, or less -- and it will be a disastrous step for the British people.
Much as I admire your main point, my admiration for it was dimmed by your barmy choice to vote Labour at the next election. How you can intend to take such a recklessly thoughtless step yet write coherently and compellingly about the EU is a complete mystery.

this posting is fallacious and packs a bunch of lies !
YOur asumption that the Brits are clueless shows some arrogant state of mind . They are neither mor nor less "clueless" than othe EU member citizens.
But they know very well the costs of that useless corruptbunch of redtape called EU and they want out of it.
This is the sort of democratic sort you and your lot don't accept.

So if the UK leaves the EU then the skies will fall, the fields will burn and we will return to the Dark Ages? Wow. There are many reasons to support the position of EU membership but the kind of alarmist nonsense written above really doesn't do those arguments justice.

You state that the EU was meant to be forever while conveniently ignoring that, in the UK at least, we were told that we were joining a Common Market, a trading block. There is not and has never been a democratic mandate in Britain for all that has come since, perfectly illustrated by your assertion that the EU is a federal jurisdiction. Is it really? Whom amongst the peoples of Europe has consented to that? Certainly not the British who are, by virtue of our history, rather more attached to our democratic way of life than some of our near neighbours.

According to you a politician with the temerity to ask the electorate what they think is reflecting a national xenophobia, as if any lack of unquestioning obedience, any departure from a future mapped out without consent is racism or, as Cameron very shrewdly put it, heresy.

The British people are not the morons you seemingly wish to portray them as, which is why they have a healthy distrust for unelected EU officials and the institutions they are building without the mandate of the people. Those who place their trust and faith too easily in unaccountable men with big ideas often come to regret it. If continental Europeans haven't learned that lesson by now, well, they never will.

If, as you claim, the EU goal of a federal superstate really is the land of milk and honey then its supporters should have the courage of their convictions and not fear that the UK public will share their belief.

Any top down solution that diminishes democracy is destined to fail and end in bitter recriminations. If ultimately the EU refuses to allow the UK to adopt the relationship that suits our country then - to the joy of many on this site - we will certainly leave, and when we make a resounding success of that new future you can bet that we won't be the last to go.

Two things:
- You seem to think (as well as the author of the article) that the UK can choose the relationship with the EU and set the conditions after it left. Maybe the EU has something to say about it. Also, Angela Merkel is not chancellor-for-life, so she might not be running the show in a few years.
- Your phrase "UK simply cannot support 55% Spanish unemployment" is difficult to understand, since the unemployment in Spain is less than half what you mention and the UK support for unemployment in other countries nonexistant. EU bailouts are aimed at ensuring that troubled southern and Irish banks return the loans to central European banks, not to support unemployment.

Latest news mentioned 55% as a record (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-21180371), so I'm afraid what you say is incorrect. But that's besides the point:
Mr. sikko6 said "UK simply cannot support 55% Spanish unemployment" and did not mention youth unemployment in his argument, so I don't understand either your apparent attempt to correct my statement.

To begin with, this article is fallacious.
It is a bunch of disguised lies written by one or more idiots who want to force their own idea ( and maybe their own benefits )
Who fears losing to the UKIP ? Both main parties , not only Tories.
But that’s not the main point.
I read here : “ This newspaper would have preferred that Mr Cameron leave the timing of the referendum vague“
Is that so , The Economist ? Are you such slick liars ? Are you afraid of asking the people what they want ?
The carmakers example is a bad choice because the European car industry is going down the gutter. Ther is no future in there, just like the euro currency.
Stating that “The threat of an exit as soon as 2017 is likely to discourage multinational companies from investing in Britain.” is not only wrong but also another slick lie. Just see how many multinational companies went flocking into Switzerland the last decade exactly because it’s not in the EU.

And to suggest holding back while awaiting better days for the euro zone’s future is another slick trick because the euro zone has no future. Just like the punks in the 80s .

So let the Brits decide what they want. Personally I think they’d be much better off away from the EU dictatorship-like bureaucracy. Little to lose and a lot to gain if the UK dumps the EU , and the sooner the better.

'the EU dictatorship-like bureaucracy'. You know nothing about how the EU works. All you know is the garbage that the tabloids feed you. The EU affects British citizens far less than they know. Its good to have a scapegoat. 'The foreigners'! They did it!

No it is YOU who knows nothing about how the E.U. works - I suggest you read the books of Christopher Booker and Richard North to find out (or talk to some MEPs who not utterly corrupt - and there are some).

Still I commend you for calling yourself "Liberal" Paternalist - this would of course be "liberal" in the American post 1920s sense (i.e. socialist).

It annoys me when some collectivists (step forward Cass Sunstein) use the oxymoron "libertarian paternalist".

Sadly, most people hvae no clue about how Europe works, thus it makes an easy scapegoat.

Funny that people beleive that in the EU "Eurocrats" hold the power, when most of it is wielded actually by the member states (via the council of Ministers) and by democratically elected Members of the European Parliament.

This is almost Orwellian. The EP is a rubber stamp for European Commission diktats, carefully arranged to never, ever apply democratic accountability to the EC technocrats.
-
Fun game - find the last time the EP actually rejected a serious EC ruling.

to Liberal Paternalist who wrote:
.Soon Brits will emigrate to continental Europe to seek employment.
.
I personally know a small number of them in an even smaller village where I like to spend my quality time
.
They have been arriving gradually for a few years but numbers have been increasing steadily. And all this before the almost inevitable slump about to hit Britain.

'For starters, what do you think the council of Ministers does?'
Now this really is special. Your comeback about the highly undemocratic nature of the EU is to bring up a body that is also not directly elected? Again, how very Orwellian.
-
'Again, you show you lack (and willingness) to understand the slightest bit about what you are talking about.'
And you jump to make personal attacks when someone dares hold you accountable.

'Soon Brits will emigrate to continental Europe to seek employment.
.
I personally know a small number of them in an even smaller village where I like to spend my quality time'
-
I feel like I am reading something from a parallel universe. The Eurozone unemployment levels are so high that they should be considered a EU wide emergency, yet you and this 'Liberal Paternalist' are wilfully blinding yourselves to the problem, just so you can indulge in sneering.
-
I find that genuinely heartless and unpleasant.

To jamesyar on Britons emigrating to the Continent
.
I thought you had asked me never to mention you again in my posts, which I have religiously respected.
.
But since it is you who has addressed me, I have no problems in replying.
.
Exchange of populations has existed within Europe (and in all other continents for millennia). It has increased tremendously in the last few years with ease of communications, lower travel costs, tourism globalization and what not.
.
Nurses, doctors and such like flock to the UK as there is a shortage of them there; the same applies from the rest of Europe to Portugal and probably other countries. Low and medium skill people emigrate to Germany, France and so on where there was a strong shortage of them; for some reason that has always puzzled me, tourist and hotel operatives emigrate from Spain to Finland and I could go on and on for reams of electronic paper.
.
In times of economic difficulties in "emigrating" countries this movement increases; it slows down or even reverses in times of economic bounty.
.
I have never met anyone complexed about it. You are definitely the first and it does surprise me. Believing the others are "sneering" when they just quote facts is one of the best known complexes. Like "beauty ", "sneering" is in the eye of the beholder if you allow me a bit of silliness. I, at least, never sneer: it always degrades the one who does the sneering, not the sneered at.
.
There are a lot of Continental European countries with a much higher unemployment rate than Britain particularly since the debt crisis that started, as the Great Depression in the thirties, by a disastrous faux pas of the financial industry that became criminal in the 2000's
.
But there are a lot of terribly frightened people in England who are anticipating serious trouble there and therefore are emigrating.
.
I share their fears but Heavens above! how I wish they and I are wrong .
.
The point is that nobody has to be ashamed because their countries look as if they are going to have trouble or they are already in big trouble. Conversely, it is very stupid to be proud because your country receives immigrants. It happens all the time, can be a very indirect indicator of "taxpayer feeling" but that's all.
.
It'll change again in probably half a dozen years...
.
For long months I have expressed my fears of trouble in Britain (and Japan) because of their unsustainable debt levels. I have hoped I was bloody wrong. Recent indicators seem to confirm my fears are far from being groundless.
.
Let's all tackle the causes of the problems not starting calling each other "somethingphobes" as you do.
.
It would help a great deal if nobody took stats as football rankings.
.
Money, maths and figures are all very allergic to feelings. We never do anything right unless you look icily cold at them and decide you have to pull that lever otherwise the whole thing will flatten itself on the ground.
.
Humility is the only emotion that may help. Shame, gloating, hotheadedness, false pride, vanity all make us make the wrong decisions.
.
Please read Kipling, above all "IF". He represented the spirit of England when she was really great. Not because she had a huge empire; others have had it too. But because Britons could do the right thing at the right time and were not afraid of correcting mistakes that we all make.
.
We are all living through troubled times. Don't make them worse by not looking at realities or calling them names.

@ Jamesyar:
.
"I feel like I am reading something from a parallel universe"
.
_____________________________________
.
That's a familiar feeling for everybody reading Sanmartinian's posts, isn't it?
.
The bottom line of all of his statements is: de facto bankrupt Portugal is doing fine (or at least is not worse off than its creditors), everybody else is in trouble.
.
When you'll then present him with publicly available data, he'll tell you they are worthless and that there's huge conspiracy going on, and that the only calculations that can be trusted are the ones he's just made on the back of an envelope and which show every respectable economist from the IMF to the ECB and every renowned institution in between has been wrong. (He's not even an economist, mind you.)
.
Basically, he's having a conversation with himself.

@ Sanmartinian:
.
It's getting tiresome.
.
BRITAIN is a net immigration country.
PORTUGAL is a net emigration country at present.
.
Emigration from Portugal to elsewhere in the EU (and beyond) has shot up dramatically over the past two years.
.
The Brits who are emigrating are mostly seniors retiring to sunnier (and cheaper) places. The Portuguese emigrating are almost exclusively young skilled laborers looking for the jobs they can't find in Portugal.
.
At some point you should start looking reality straight in the eye. With your nonsensical reality-denying, the only thing you and your not overly clever sidekick Pedro achieve is to alienate even the staunchest friends of Portugal, such as myself.

to Josh now named Joshua Tree and self avowedly other monikers.
.
This is getting really tiresome: your stalking me in every thread I write to pick an idiotic fight.
.
Incidentally "this is getting tiresome" is one the typical sentences of Jamesyar's style (I feel free to use his name again as he replied to me without any reference of mine to him)
.
I've told you several times I've no patience for this childish type of arguments. So, as I've hinted before, I will neither read nor reply to any post that I suspect comes from any of your numerous aliases.
.
Just to show you are not after any serious comment, what you and I have said are the same thing. Just note: the English speaking Isles have been since around mid 17th century a net emigrating region. Spain since the early 17th century. Portugal since the mid 15th century. Many other continental European countries mostly since the 1848 revolution with a high incidence twenty years either side of the turn of the 19th/20th centuries. French Huguenots after St Bartholomew's night, mostly to other European countries and curiously to South Africa.(Small imprecisions and omissions galore)
.
Occasionally and for historically short periods, the English speaking Islands, Spain and Portugal have become net immigration countries: England since, say, the 1960's, Spain since the mid 90's, Ireland a little before, Portugal from 1975 with a high incidence from the 90's until 2010.
.
Ireland, Spain and Portugal have probably become again net emigration countries for the last three or four years. England apparently not yet.
.
To avoid this post being just a childish argument, here goes my last series of data to you:
.
The net emigration historical pattern of the above mentioned countries can be roughly deduced from these approximate figures: Spanish (rather Castilian) is now the native most spoken European language (405 million, 2010 estimate). Guessed population at beginning of mass emigration between 4 and 5 million. Ratio of present native speakers to original ones, around 10 to one.
.
The second native most spoken European language, English, 360 million, 2010 estimate. Guessed population at the beginning of mass emigration around 5 million. Ratio present native speakers to original ones around 7 to 1.
.
The third is Portuguese, 215 million. Guessed original speakers at the beginning of expansion between half and one million. Ratio of present native speakers to original ones a minimum of 20 to 1; possibly twice as much. (sources: Ethnologue and similar)
.
Although this is a small not representative sample, in the small village I like to spend my quality time (I'm not there now), the native English speaking colony consists of some 40 home owners for several short yearly periods, the majority being Irish, one business man, now the first or second largest employer in the small town, some three or four restaurant cooks, same number of restaurant waiters, a few IT technicians, one or two grocers (mom and pop stores as Americans say), a number of either self employed estate agents or Englishmen and women employed by established estate agents, English or otherwise, one or two shop owners, at least one active nurse and possibly a couple of active doctors a few miles away.
.
I know of no retired native English speaker bar me. And I'm not really retired. Still help to run a couple large companies and two tiny ones.
.
Of course, there are thousands (millions?) of retired native English speakers along the Mediterranean coast but the nearest point to my beloved village is some 600 miles away.
.
Incidentally, although I've exchanged correspondence with Pedrolx as I've done with you, I've never met the gentleman or spoken to him. Even on the phone or by carrier pigeon.
.
I doubt you are a friend of anyone, let alone staunch. Anyway, that's a blatant copy of my usual narrative. You are showing, as that presumed Canadian female, a comical habit to imitate the style of those whom you have decided to attack. Sure you are not she? With your habit of changing monikers one never knows.
.
However, if I turn away people such as you, I'm definitely doing those you call friends a favour.
.
And again accusing me of not accepting reality is lack of imagination. That's what I've been doing to a number of people here who are blind to serious dangers they may face.
.
Repeat I shall now discard unread any post I suspect comes from you.
.
Good bye. Have a happy life.
.
It would be a blessing if moderators found a reason to delete this post as they did last time to a number of them, both mine and a few other posters', you very much included. It would improve the quality of these threads and The Economist's prestige.

@ Sanmartinian:
.
First, as I've told you earlier, I'm not going to ask you for permission when and where to post.
.
Second, keep me kindly out of your conspiracy theories ("everybody disagreeing with me is a paid agent") and don't think I'm impressed by the routine insults/condescension you have for everybody not sharing your point of view ("stupid"). Since politeness demands to respect age, I will not return them in kind.
.
Third, I'm posting under ONE monicker only and have left no one in doubt who I am. As usual, your sensational findings are yesterday's news. It's sadly comical that you now seem to think everybody disagreeing with you is one person in real life.
.
And finally, on the issue: you were talking about PRESENT data, not three centuries of migration, but gave the false impression that Britain was experiencing net emigration (and Portugal net immigration), when the opposite is true. On balance, people are leaving Portugal because times are bad. And they are going to countries such as Britain, where prospects are still a lot better.

To Jamesyear on Britons emigrating to the continent and the other way round
.
Your comment left me wondering which is the large flow; Britons to the Continent or otherwise on a permanent basis, not holidays.
.
Hard to get stats, so I did the second best thing.
.
I've compared British residents in Portugal with Portuguese residents in Britain, my reasoning being that Britons who come to live in Europe on account of the weather will very unlikely choose Portugal.
.
With due apologies to the Portuguese Tourist Agency' efforts to woo retired Britons, weather wise Portugal with her frequent strong winds and cold sea waters is no match for Mediterranean lands. The Algarve is half an exception but it is only a small part of the country.
.
So the flow between the two countries can be taken as a rough sample of "working emigration" between Britain and the continent. Very very rough,and possibly very wrong, but it is the only straw I have.
.
England and Wales have an approximate population of 56 million; Portuguese immigrants there are about 88 thousand. So the rate of Portuguese immigrants in England & Wales is 1 to 640 thousand native residents.
.
Portugal has some 25 thousand British immigrants for a population of roughly 10 million. In other words,1 Briton for every 400 thousand Portuguese.
.
Portuguese win hands down: there are far more Britons coming to Portugal than Portuguese going to Britain if we accept the many, and probably wrong, approximations I had to make.
.
Let's be fair though. If I measure the number of emigrants as a percentage of their countrymen the proportion is the opposite. All Briton immigrants in Portugal are 1 in 2.4 million of their countrymen. All the Portuguese immigrants in England and Wales are 1 in 110 thousand or far, far more than Britons residing in Portugal.
.
You know the old saying about statisticians like me, don't you? If we torture numbers properly they'll confess anything we wish to accuse them of.
.
Stats are to be icily cold analysed with no emotions of any sort. They serve to make proper decisions, if properly analysed, not to shout Ruritarians are in bad shape, it's the Bordurians who are thriving.
.
That's for hotheaded, emotive and not very cultivated people. One of the great quality of the English was they were exactly like that in their great majority. Are they losing the trait?
.
If they are, it's our business to make them regain it.
.
Apologies for the ridiculously unimportant technical side of this post.
.
The conclusion on how to react to facts is the important bit. Personally I try never to forget it. You do as you choose.

@ Sanmartininan:
.
"You know the old saying about statisticians like me, don't you? If we torture numbers properly they'll confess anything we wish to accuse them of."
.
_________________________________________
.
You only wish.
.
The opposite of what you say is true.
.
Those were the figures in 2011 (the latest year with complete records):
.
BRITAIN: net IMMIGRATION of about + 150,000 people.
.
PORTUGAL: net EMIGRATION of about - 120,000 people
(= 1,2% of the pop., an all-time high).
.
The British government is trying to bring net immigration down (below 100,000), the Portuguese government is encouraging young unemployed to leave.
.
Sources:
.http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/nov/24/uk-net-migration-record-highhttp://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2011/12/20111230137979968.html

Agreed. There are many reasons for the UK to consider leaving; if it does not feel European, it has no duty to feign it. But all the pathos about democracy or European demos is pathetic twaddle from such hyper-democrats as the Murdoch press. Every single instance from the EU is either elected (not many of those) or designated by elected governments. Pouring scorn on the 25,000 or so Euro civil servants (the size of an average capital city administration in Europe) is like calling bobbies Fascists because they obey their Minister's orders without asking Joe Public first.

Cameron can't handle the Eurosceptics, he's trying to save his skin and be reelected. The referendum is a stupidity (I'm amazed that the economist thinks the opposite!!!), he knows it, he's just fueling the British tabloids and its insular readers.
The referendum probably won't happen, far too risky for the country. The EU is far from being perfect but being out of it is far worse.

your comments support the EU bureaucrats and most EU governments because if they ask their people the same question many would opt to pull out - that means the few countries that contribute, obviously - the majority of EU members are parasites and these would not want to move on, actually these are the ones who fear more if the UK quits the sinking ship the EU is.

I agree that leaving the EU fully is a bad idea for Britain, however, there is no way that Britain is joining the currency/political union suicide pact that the EU is rapidly (having) to head for.
The main problem is exactly what you clearly believe in: one cannot allow the citizens to vote on their future, they might make the wrong choice. The EU is a political pact, not a democratic one. When was the last time that the EU voted as a citizenship rather than a professional politic - or when they did (Ireland), they were emphatically told to go away and try again until they got the 'correct' result.

I have never heard anybody worried about UK leaving the EU. Actually, quite a few would be more than happy to get rid of such "uncomfortable partner". In any case, I think that if there is a question whether it is the best for the UK, their citizens should be asked the question.

I assure you that Mr Cameron's stock is at a low ebb in the Shires. His chances of re-election are vastly reduced since he has chosen to deliberately target the countryside, treat it as some sort of idle resource rather than the comfort to millions and the bread basket in perpetuity . Looking at the rightness of the differing political affiliations here makes me feel sick, reduced, nonplussed, for all that we have conjured in political terms since the year dot seems to be little other than the management of decline and the rise of the State. It is a triumph of socialism in Britain, this reduction in the standing of the individual and the squandering of national assets without demur. The triumph of Conservatism is that it makes even socialism look good. We are poltroons in the main with our disparagement of the 'opposition' being our main argument. Our crop of leaders, poltroons to a man, all of them, and such important, powerful poltroons at that. We have no recourse but to like the least harmful rather the most active or exciting. Shame on us all.

this "uncomfortable partner" is one of the biggest contributors to the Eu
Once the Pandora box is open maybe other important contributors would also get away
Then you have the (majority) parasite states like Greece, Portugal, Spain etc and you try to make some Eu with that lot.
Obviously Germany doesn't want to be left with only a few other contributors because then it would b the Germans wishing out.
Yes , ask the Brits.
But I doubt ther will be a real democratic referendum.
That sort of democracy doesn't please the dictator-like pudits in Brussels

Thanks for showing what I meant: many people consider uncomfortable having a supposedly friendly neighbor insulting another neighbor. Not that I consider you to be English, but you display the same contempt for others as they often do (as an example, the name PIGS for certain countries). Best regards.

Your editorial line is always 'EU - right or wrong' with a few tweaks - Greece and Spain have 56 % youth unemployment

You say a referendum in 2017 may be too soon - good grief! the last and only one was in 1975 - THIRTY-SEVEN years ago.

I do not agree with Mr Cameron on some things but he was spot on to say that in the globalised economy 'you are QUICK or you are DEAD' China has grown about 25 % since 2008 - EZ has declined 3 %. It is clear that our businesses must re-orientate to B 300m R 250m I 1.1bn C 1.3bn TOTAL 3 BILLION if we are to prosper or even escape the dead hand of the financial crisis.

It seems a majority of the English (yes, not the British) want just a little renegotiation:

1) exclusion from Common Agricultural and Fisheries policies;

2) no contribution to Structural and Cohesion funds;

3) exemptions from social, labor and environmental policy;

4) no cooperation on policing and justice, but somehow yes on terrorism;

5) no more free movement of workers or service providers -at least some- (2 of the 4 fundamental community freedoms);

6) no more EU regulation of the financial system.

They want instant free trade agreements with every other country in the world and light regulation of products.

And any regulation would require unanimity anyway.

They would stay out of the Euro and Schengen (yet continue to benefit from the Dublin regulation and therefore from offering asylum).

They would slash pay and downsize the few dozen thousand workers of the EU and basically extending their rebate into a nominal contribution.

They want to dictate where the European Parliament (if it needs to exist) meets and get rid of the Committee of the Regions and the Economic and Social Committee, just to start.

And the EU needs to stop "competing" with NATO (even though the US seems less and less interested in European defense).

Along the way, they confuse the European Union with the Council of Europe and also want special British standards on human rights. They want Strasbourg Court judgements to apply to Russia but not themselves.

Note from the non-tabloid reading Europe to the English: the Eurozone crisis has nothing to do with any of the above, so don´t count on a wholesale reopening of all the treaties.

Actually, currently on the agenda there is no treaty reform being necessary. Some reforms are considered ideal, like the treaty that was approved bypassing the UK.

Every member state has the right to initiate Treaty reform. Cameron should not be a liar and a coward and just present his ideas.

Wholesale Treaty reform on the scale being discussed by the English would take a few years to negotiate and approve. By 2017 it would need to have been accepted by the governments (and maybe parliaments and electorates) of the 28 members of the EU.

This is the only way the UK could vote with full knowledge of what Cameron was able to accomplish in the renegotiation.

YOu wrote many words and you miss many points. The Brits as such are sick and tired of Brussel's dictatorship and red tape.
Draw a baloance sheet of EU x UK relationship for the last 30 years and you see liabilities surpass assets by large.

The prime minister wants a European Union dedicated to free trade and competitiveness?Are you kidding me? The Prime Minister just wants to stay in power as long as possible as any other sensible politician. Evidently he could not find anything better than the old fashioned laisez faire anti keynesian banner - again this sounds sensible to me. The Economist is also a sensible publishing house, you chose the right cover. But make no mistake, statemanship is an illusion of economists and fools.

"Business is, by and large, horrified by the prospect that Britain might leave".
If this is true then "Business" needs to start making the case - all we get in the media are tales of how EU rules tie business up in red tape and are a choke on it's activity.
So if there the benefits to business of being in the EU exceed the costs of staying in we need to know what they are.

The article overlooks an important factor: that the EU is rapidly moving towards an increasingly undemocratic, rigid and over regulated monster state. The corruption, arrogance, mismanagement, and complacency of the ruling class is just getting worse every year. The EU elite demand that we (regular people) obey EU laws and principles if the aim is to increase power concentration to the EU but they cheat, lie and bend the rules to the max if the laws prevent or slow down increased power centralization.
As if that weren’t bad enough, the EU is crumbling under its own weight and is likely to implode in an ocean of debt. Popular resistance is increasing all over Europe as citizens realize that they have been robbed of their democratic rights to influence or change EU laws. Citizens in small EU countries are particularly powerless and their only option is blind obedience and subjugation. As more EU citizens listen to the excellent YouTube speeches in the EU Parliament by UKIP’s Farrange, people across Europe will begin to realize how terrible the ramifications of this monstrous project are.
Britain leaving the EU is not enough. The EU needs to be obliterated. If Britain leaves and the EU is left standing it will continue to develop into a nightmarish post-democratic empire. The only way to weaken the EU is to encourage a mass exodus of countries. During the last few decades a dividing line has emerged within the European Ministerial Council. In voting conflicts about handing over more power to the EU a minority opposition block has often been: UK, Netherlands, Finland, Sweden, Denmark, Estonia and sometimes Ireland.
Overall, these countries have better functioning economies and public finances compared to the rest of the EU. If Britain leaves I hope these other countries will also leave the monster state and form a trade block that could be large enough to force the EU into concessions.
If a Northern European “mini EU” is formed as a free trade block and is successful we might convince others to join (Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Norway, Iceland, possibly Germany). This would be a deadly blow to Brussels.
******
Here is a glossary of some false new-speech terms used by the EU ruling class:
*Harmonisation = One monolithic set of rules that should be forced onto all EU countries. No room for adaption to local conditions or differences between member states. Most likely a carbon copy of French or German regulation.
*Increased cooperation = Term used by EU mandarins and national politicians to defend the EU, meaning that power is handed over from nation states to the EU. Cooperation is good, innit?
*Peace = Emotional argument used by pro-EU politicians. When they can’t win a debate they state: “The EU has brought peace to Europe, those who are against the EU are against peace in Europe”. They believe they have won the debate with this argument.
*Principle of subsidiarity = Decisions should be made at the lowest possible level (EU, nations, regions, local councils). This principle was part of the EU lingo until the mid 1990s but has not been invoked for the last 20 years.
*Ever Closer Union = Once power is handed over to the EU from the member states it will never ever never be handed back. (There is no democratic way for voters to express that they want an EU law changed. Once in place, it is written in stone forever.)
*Passerelle Clause = A backdoor in the EU treaties that opens for unlimited and irrevocable transfers of power to the EU without the need for new treaties, provided there is a unanimous decision in the EU Council of Ministers.
*Sustainable development = Empty fluff. For example the EU fishery policy, which is nothing but subsidised looting and extermination of the remaining wild fish pools.
*Whistleblower protection = Non-existent in the EU, if an EU official reports fraud or corruption he/she will be fired, prosecuted and stripped of their EU pension, not the culprits.
*Curia, The European Court of Justice = Another EU institution with a hidden agenda of increasing centralization and EU powers. They bend the rules of the treaties as much as possible to move power from citizens and member states to the EU.
*Code Napoleon = French legal framework that forms the backbone of EU law. One central principle in CN is that everything is forbidden unless explicitly permitted (and regulated) by the state.
*Civil rights and Bill of Rights = there is almost no protection in EU law.
*Freedom of Speech = Almost no protection in EU law.
*Freedom of information Act = Non-existent in the EU.
*Voting records in the European Parliament = Non-existent. Voters have no way of knowing if their MEP has followed through on what they promised to do.

Damn I accidentally recommended your article...that was not my intention.
Please tell me on which planet you live? Or what dope you smoke to have developed this beautiful conspiracy theory?
Just one thing I want to point out to you, the EU is not Great Britain of the 19th century where small countries had no choice but to subjugate.

My long held opinion is that politics as usual have become another star industry like cinema, sports, and celeb watching.
.
Not worth paying much attention to.
.
Politics nowadays, as in all times of crises, are played by interests backstage. Many of these collective, shapeless masses.
.
There are dozens of those in the Humpty Dumptyesque game of Britain in,
Britain out of the EU.
.
Just one, very hidden, at hazard: it looks as if Britons are in their majority in favour of Britain out. It is almost sure the majority of Britons support the Monarchy and the Queen is, very justifiably, very, very popular.
.
Now look at this not minor problem: the Queen's farming estates, receive a large share of their income from CAP contributions, provided by the EU.
.
So, wittingly or unwittingly, the majority of Britons may have this minor but not negligible dilemma: do we leave the EU because we don't like it (their full right) or do we stay in because the Queen we love (their full right too, I being with them) will come out losing substantially?
.
This is the ideal situation for politicians and big interests to take advantage of; what will come of it is anybody's guess but a huge gamble it is.
.
And please don't start complaining that this type of questions is Anglophobia. It reminds me of those who blamed the beginning of the Euro debt crisis on Anglo-Saxon machinations. My reply to that was always I'd never heard of the Royal Republic of Anglo-Saxonny".
.
Hope I don't have to invent a name for those who discuss the subject objectively and will be called Anglophobe.

There is a fondness for the queen, and for the royal family in general, which I don't share, by the way, but to think that any British citizen would vote against their own interests to protect the income of the queen, shows how limited your understanding of Britain is

to bS5JxSZDb8
who wroteThere is a fondness for the queen, and for the royal family in general,...
.
For the Queen yes, for others I'm not all that sure but you may be right.
.
I'm not very keen on starting debates with those, who, modern ages style, accuse other posters of limited understanding.
.
Nowhere did I suggest that Britons would vote against their interests to protect those of the Queen.
.
What I clearly said was: This is the ideal situation for politicians and big interests to take advantage of; what will come of it is anybody's guess but a huge gamble it is.
.
Maybe reading carefully will improve understanding and may you be sure that apart from football, cricket or other mass sports, there's not much about Britain I haven't understood well ever since I was born.
.
But that's totally unimportant.

"So, wittingly or unwittingly, the majority of Britons may have this minor but not negligible dilemma: do we leave the EU because we don't like it (their full right) or do we stay in because the Queen we love (their full right too, I being with them) will come out losing substantially?"

Always willing to take advice, but rereading your post, I can't help but think I understood you the first time.
There is simply no dilemma.

Cameron's move is simply not a gamble in the sense that many people seem to be taking it.
It is not poker, where the cards are kept face down.
He has said that he wants the UK to take back some sovereignty.
If the rest of the EU will not give back as much sovereignty as a majority of people in the UK want, then the UK will leave.
Where is the bluff?

Are there really any intelligent people who think that no member of the EU has the right to decide to leave or stay?
Or that if the inclination is to leave, that the member does not have the right to first ask fellow members to consider changes?

Those who are critical of Cameron or the British in general should consider this:
How far do they want European integration to go?
And what would be their solution when they realise that some around them are intent on going much further than they would like.
Ie. is this a club where when you join, everyone has to go to the most extreme point that another member (or even a majority of other members) wants to go?
An extreme example is often useful, so how about if a majority of countries in the EU decided that there should be a common language, and this should be to the exclusion of other languages?
Ridiculous, I know, and it s just a single issue, but I hope the point is clear.

Isn't it this lack of clear thinking on fundamentals that led to the creation of a common currency before the necessary conditions (and understanding) was in place?

This is not an attempt at an a la carte marriage as someone mistakenly wrote.
One partner has simply realised that an escalating level of S and M sex is not what they want, and because there is an appreciation of the good aspects of the marriage is asking the other partner to calm things down.
In return for some understanding, perhaps this partner would be willing to let the other partner go and live out their S and M desires with other like minded people, and then come home each evening!

Even if there is a majority in every other country in the EU, who want to go a lot further towards ever closer union, isn't it wiser to consider the views of those who don't?
Amongst those are people who have valuable insights, who are afraid, who are simply happy where things currently are, or would like to go further, but not so quickly.

European integration has so many benefits.
Why can't those who are most enthusiastic about this, see that the most important thing is to make sure we arrive at this destination safely, rather than proceed at the pace that some politicians set, with the risk that the train comes off the tracks half way along?
Slow down!
Let's get big majorities comfortable with each step before moving to the next.

'Big majority' is slyly misused by socialists in the so-called democracy. The votes e.g. in a referendum should be calculated based to the total of ACTUAL votes given and NOT based to the REGISTERED voters of a country. As long as this is not done also in the co-called democratic elections, the on-going flattening of Maslow' Pyramid will in the end kill all opposition. This has already happened and led to the current socialization of most countries in Europe.
It is wrong to assume that those who did not, for whatever reason, vote automatically sanction the result of the election or the referendum!

I just wonder.... what would be the result if we held an EU wide referendum in all 27 countries on the same date, on the same subject: IN or OUT.
Personally I would be in favor of scrapping the Union and go back to the European Community system where we could work together on points of common interest and concern but without a heavy handed bureaucracy and without dictatorial "commisars"
What about you?

I agree with the Common Market option.
And if such referendum took place now I think many would vote "out", in the countries that really pay the Eu bills like Germany, NL, LX and France. But their governments would never allow such referendum, that kind of democracy is not the one they like. They like golden nests + perks + some corruption on the side.

Many Dutch people are decent - but if all Dutch people were like you, I would have supported leaving you in the previous European Union of the early 1940s. The European Union that killed members of my family (yes they were Dutch - although Dutch Jews).

Many British people died fighting for the independence of the Netherlands as well as he independence of the United Kingdom - please stop spitting on their graves.

Back in 1992 Denmark voted no to the EU and the French voted yes by only 51,5 per cent so according to your way of reckoning there are a lot of idiots in those two countries. Wonder how many there are in Holland and elsewhere....

And what about the EURO? Were the Brits, Danes and Swedes myopic and misinformed idiots when refusing to join the single currency?

IF that is planned, the probable scenario is: 1. The referendum will be repeated until it delivers/manipulates an EU-favorable result 2. To achieve this, the Eu Bank and EU-Commission will be busy printing and distributing to power-hungry politicians in the 27 countries the paper money (which was the sole purpose of a single currency) 3. Any future collective referendum will be banned by a newly defined 'treaty'. 4. The politicians will very quickly convert their money and put it in tax-havens. 5. The responsible persons for this ideo(to)logy of a single currency will step back on 'health' reasons.

or, in other terms, only idiots and/or corrupts want to remain within the Eu
If you really are Dutch you have a very short memory ...a few years ago the Dutch clearly showed signs of being fed up with the Brussel's dictatorship...they almost sent Brussels packing , but did not go that far unfortunately

"To achieve this, the Eu Bank and EU-Commission will be busy printing and distributing to power-hungry politicians in the 27 countries the paper money (which was the sole purpose of a single currency)"

As the ECB has been adamant it would NOT follow the US/UK's ongoing example of overheating the banknote printer, and has been true to its word despite many entreaties, this is one of the most inane Europhobic statements on this forum, and that says quite a lot.

Considering the noble history of how some nations were 'convinced' to join the Union, the scenario is more probable than one would like to admit. Whether it is inane or Europhobic depends on how easily one can be brain-washed by the propaganda.

Both the article and the preious comments show two things: that the British (including the Economist) massively underestimate continental Europeans' sympathy for their demands, and that they massively overestimate their chances of getting any of these demands fulfilled. While most people - and most papers - over here generally support the notions of cutting the Brussels bureaucracy and strengthening national sovereignty in key areas, the chances of Britain reaching any of that in negotiations with the EU is exactly zero. Why ? Because for Angela Merkel and her peers, it doesn't matter whether they privately support Britain's wishes. What matters is that granting any of these wishes would open Pandora's box - any EU member state would come up with their own demands, and the EU would break up in no time. This is something that has to be avoided at all costs; letting Britain go instead is a small, negligible price. Apart from that: negotiations are supposed to be two-way affairs. Cameron has put up plenty of demands - but he has offered nothing in return. So why should the EU and its member states negotiate with the UK on that basis in the first place ?

Britain is joint with France in having the 2nd largest population and economy in the EU. Britain was Germany's No. 1 trading partner in 2012 - ahead of the USA, France or China. At current population trends, Britain is very likely to become the EU's most populous nation mid-century. Alongside France, Britain is the only EU member capable of projecting substantial military power, and with France it is the only EU member with a seat on the UN Security council.

Britain has by far Europe's strongest university sector - internationally Britain is the 2nd most popular destination for higher education after the USA. London is Europe's financial capital (more now than before the euro), and comes close to rivalling New York as a pre-eminent world city in many ways - to a far greater extent than any other European city. Britain also has very close ties to many nations beyond Europe - especially the USA, Canada and Australia.

So the loss of Britain would not be 'small, negligible' - it would represent a substantial diminishing of the EU's resources and status.

You said it all : EU politicos are afriad of the Pandora box effect ! They fear for their careers, golden jobs + perks , great retirement plans. In the meanwhile EU joe Does pay for that and, worse, some are blind enogh to support such malarkey.
The EU is a failing machine and has no future.
Merkel has a priority that is, electoral year in Germany.
She would not dare to offer such referendum to her people because there may be too many of them willing to pull out.
Why should Germans keep pumping their tax money to bail out bottomless debts of Greece ?
The Eurodream is over, the EU is broke, the best markets are away and won't come back.

How did you arrive at "letting Britain go instead is a small, negligible price"? Surely the exit of the only significant liberal country might well act as an even swifter catalyst to disintegration that allowing opt-outs from say labour and policing restrictions? The business of politics is compromise.

The 48hr working week is a great example of compromise. Most people in London are presented with a paper waiving their right to a 48hr working week. We gladly sign it and get on with the business of making a good life for ourselves and our families.

Given that the Eu is playing fast and loose with the SNP as they angle for position on Scotland's independance referendum, Mr. Cameron is indeed gambling that Scotland does not get it's free pass into the EU. If events, and opinion polls, start pushing for an OUT vote, that makes a Scottish independance vote more likely. Then if Scotland votes for independance then the UK IN/OUT vote then becomes an English/Welsh/N. Irish IN/OUT vote; leading to a more likely OUT scenario.

Given these machinations, Mr. Cameron would be wise to keep his referendum proposal under wraps so as to not push the Scots away.